Good Ole George Bush and Social Security
- Thread starter Pujo21
- Start date
As much as I can appreciate people rightly ripping on that stupid ass hick in the White House.... this is the wrong forum.
As much as I may disagree with anybody that is the President of the United States no matter the political party, honestly I don't think any of them can be classified as a "stupid ass hick". I find it interesting that what was a crisis for one president is now no longer a crisis for another when all that changed was political parties in the White House. Just an observation.
Take care
Bucky
Take care
Bucky
there is no wrong forum when it comes to protecting seniors. american citizens / senior citizens derserve better than this ....and being told you are on your own when you get old after working all your life while they send $$$$$BILLIONS to other countries. It's not phucking right.
It's getting real pathetic.
It's getting real pathetic.
it's bad enuff in this great nation that Senior Citizens are deprived of medical care because of lack of coverage and it's unaffordable.
and prescriptions medicines that seniors need.
This country should do anything/everything in it's power to see to it that no senior citizen is left on hard terms.
They deserve better. They shouldn't have to struggle for medical treatment.
I would gladly pay some more dollars tax so that The Elderly can get taken care of.
I hope things work out for these folks.
ALWAYS TOUGHT: RESPECT YOUR ELDERS.
and prescriptions medicines that seniors need.
This country should do anything/everything in it's power to see to it that no senior citizen is left on hard terms.
They deserve better. They shouldn't have to struggle for medical treatment.
I would gladly pay some more dollars tax so that The Elderly can get taken care of.
I hope things work out for these folks.
ALWAYS TOUGHT: RESPECT YOUR ELDERS.
maybe if they had a better retirement plan and worked a little longer instead of sitting on their rocker, things would be more affordable
"it's bad enuff in this great nation that Senior Citizens are deprived of medical care because of lack of coverage and it's unaffordable."
Deprived of medical care?--they can go anywhere they want
Unaffordable---don't know about other states but for $100 a month a person age 65 can buy supplement to medicare for bout $100 a month that with medicare pays basically 100% of approved charges at hospital and doctors. Sure wish I could have this "unaffordable" coverage.
Now prescription drugs is another issue--and i'll agree it merits consideration.
of course they won't mention that at the source "The Progressive Blog Alliance HQ" your quoting
Deprived of medical care?--they can go anywhere they want
Unaffordable---don't know about other states but for $100 a month a person age 65 can buy supplement to medicare for bout $100 a month that with medicare pays basically 100% of approved charges at hospital and doctors. Sure wish I could have this "unaffordable" coverage.
Now prescription drugs is another issue--and i'll agree it merits consideration.
of course they won't mention that at the source "The Progressive Blog Alliance HQ" your quoting
Last edited:
Will the new system do any better? Wait there is no new plan. All we here is all is on the table till someone states to make it work we need to up taxes to115000. Then they say oh not that. Just a shame they pissed away the surplus that was to go and start paying back S S. Government owes it over 2 trillion. Instead we have the biggest deficit in our history becaues we could not afford the tax cut. Sooner or later everyones tax cut will be gone paying for there higher intertest rates do to the deficit. Yes Seniors living in right states can get insurance for 100 a month. This backs up there medicare insurance that cost them another 90 a month. And they get bills because the two won't pay for all. Drugs is another story.
Doc these are folks that worked hell a lot longer then you have. So don't come with this they can work longer. They are many have gone back to work at age 70 or more just to try and pay there medical bills. Maybe you will get same chance some day to do something constructive.
Doc these are folks that worked hell a lot longer then you have. So don't come with this they can work longer. They are many have gone back to work at age 70 or more just to try and pay there medical bills. Maybe you will get same chance some day to do something constructive.
djv said:
I have yet to find one person on the board that couldn't afford a tax cut.
I for one would love to keep more of the money I make.
lol maybe we wouldn't have such a problem if we could get a tax cut and save $$ on our own
rather than the 80% return (or less) that we see on our SS
only a blind fool would want to keep such a plan
rather than the 80% return (or less) that we see on our SS
only a blind fool would want to keep such a plan
"Yes Seniors living in right states can get insurance for 100 a month. This backs up there medicare insurance that cost them another 90 a month."
DJV please tell us where it cost those 65 and older $90 a month for medicare???
The Facts
Part A of Medicare (hospital insurance) is free
Part B (doctors coverage)
HHS Announces Medicare Premium, Deductibles for 2005
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today announced the Medicare premium, deductible and coinsurance amounts to be paid by Medicare beneficiaries in 2005. The new premiums, approximately the same as the actuarial forecast published in March for the Medicare Trustees Report, reflect general growth in health care costs, higher payments to physicians and Medicare Advantage coordinated care health plans under the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), and building trust fund reserves.
Under the MMA, Medicare enrollees are benefiting from improved access to physician services, new preventive and health screening benefits, more Medicare Advantage plan choices, and better benefits and/or lower out-of-pocket costs in many Medicare Advantage plans.
The monthly premium paid by beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Part B, which covers physician services, outpatient hospital services, certain home health services, durable medical equipment and other items, will be $78.20, an increase of $11.60 over the $66.60 premium in 2004.
DJV please tell us where it cost those 65 and older $90 a month for medicare???
The Facts
Part A of Medicare (hospital insurance) is free
Part B (doctors coverage)
HHS Announces Medicare Premium, Deductibles for 2005
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today announced the Medicare premium, deductible and coinsurance amounts to be paid by Medicare beneficiaries in 2005. The new premiums, approximately the same as the actuarial forecast published in March for the Medicare Trustees Report, reflect general growth in health care costs, higher payments to physicians and Medicare Advantage coordinated care health plans under the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), and building trust fund reserves.
Under the MMA, Medicare enrollees are benefiting from improved access to physician services, new preventive and health screening benefits, more Medicare Advantage plan choices, and better benefits and/or lower out-of-pocket costs in many Medicare Advantage plans.
The monthly premium paid by beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Part B, which covers physician services, outpatient hospital services, certain home health services, durable medical equipment and other items, will be $78.20, an increase of $11.60 over the $66.60 premium in 2004.
yes
we will get a better return on our money
if your banker/financial planner told you to dig a hole in the ground and bury your savings you would call him a laughinstock
hopefully they raise the retirement age as well
we will get a better return on our money
if your banker/financial planner told you to dig a hole in the ground and bury your savings you would call him a laughinstock
hopefully they raise the retirement age as well
raise the retirement age
invest the money in the market
that will "save" it...whatever you mean by that
its a horrible plan, and no one in their right mind would rather pay it to the government for the return they get on it later with the lack of investment and all the overhead that is paid on it
invest the money in the market
that will "save" it...whatever you mean by that
its a horrible plan, and no one in their right mind would rather pay it to the government for the return they get on it later with the lack of investment and all the overhead that is paid on it
Stevie Still not sure on what his plan is--ie how he plans to pay for it.
--but it is unanimous among both parties that something has to be done at some point in time--and the sooner the fix the easier it will be. I think he has asked for opinions from both parties and seems neither has solutions just complaints. I think now would be excellent time for Dems to step up and show folks they have some answers and not just gripes.
--but it is unanimous among both parties that something has to be done at some point in time--and the sooner the fix the easier it will be. I think he has asked for opinions from both parties and seems neither has solutions just complaints. I think now would be excellent time for Dems to step up and show folks they have some answers and not just gripes.
StevieD said:
SS will be saved through the miracle of compound interest and today's far more sophisticated private investment vehicles.
Senator Reid Has No Social Security Plan
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
by Michael Tanner
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (search) has embarked on a nationwide tour to discuss Social Security reform.
Well, not really. You see, Senator Reid will not talk about reform, because he believes there is no need for reform. "There is no crisis," he will tell you.
But Senator Reid is wrong. And instead of touring the country ridiculing his colleagues for trying to fix this important program, he should be in Washington helping to iron out a solution.
Whether Senator Reid thinks Social Security is in a "crisis" or not, the program will begin to run a deficit ? spending more money on benefits than it takes in through taxes ? in less than 15 years, by 2018 according to the last report of Social Security's trustees.
The so-called Social Security Trust Fund (search), which is supposed to help pay benefits until 2042, in reality contains only government bonds, essentially IOUs. Few doubt that those benefits will ultimately be paid, but the federal government will still have to find the money to pay them. Ultimately, Social Security's unfunded liabilities exceed $26 trillion. That's real money, even by Washington terms.
I?ve just thrown a lot of dates at you. But try to forget all that. Here?s the only date you (and Senator Reid, for that matter) need to concern yourselves with: 2008. That's when the huge group of Baby Boomers starts to retire and draw on Social Security. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently stated before Congress:
"Because the pay-as-you-go system will be very difficult to manage, we need an alternative ? Real progress on these issues will unavoidably entail many difficult choices ? But the demographics are inexorable, and call for action before the leading edge of baby boomer retirement becomes evident in 2008."
Let us trust Greenspan and grant that there is a serious problem. What does Senator Reid ? the highest-ranking Democrat in Washington ? propose to do about it? Nothing. He has no plan and no suggestions, just more demagoguery.
Senator Reid used to understand the power of markets. Back in 1999, he said, "Most of us have no problem taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector." Of course, we had a different president then, one from the Senate minority leader's own party.
As that former president ? Bill Clinton ? pointed out, there are really only three options for Social Security reform: raise taxes, cut benefits, or invest privately. As Reid has ruled out private investment, he could legitimately be accused of implicitly endorsing tax increases and/or benefit cuts.
And mighty big tax increases they would have to be; a 50 percent increase in the payroll tax or the equivalent. It would be a tax increase far higher than what Senator Reid would "save" by rolling back parts of Bush's tax cuts ? even if he hadn't already promised to use those savings to fund other government spending. And, contrary to the senator's promises, a payroll tax increase is a tax hike that would fall like a piano onto workers earning less than $200,000 per year.
The benefit cuts would be no less draconian. Today's younger workers would face cuts of 27 percent in their benefits, severely diminishing their quality of life during their golden years.
Maintaining the long-term solvency of the system is far from the only problem. Social Security is set to provide today's workers with abysmally low returns on their "investments." The program unfairly penalizes African Americans, working women, and others. Workers don't have any guaranteed right to their benefits. In short, it is a program crying out for reform.
But Harry Reid continues to duck the issue.
That's unacceptable. Harry Reid needs to tell the American people what he plans to do about the looming Social Security crisis. If Reid plans to raise taxes to prop up Social Security, or cut benefits, he should tell us so. If he has another idea, he should share it with us.
But fearmongering is not a Social Security plan.
Michael Tanner is the director of Cato's Project on Social Security Choice, which maintains a website at www.socialsecurity.org.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
by Michael Tanner
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (search) has embarked on a nationwide tour to discuss Social Security reform.
Well, not really. You see, Senator Reid will not talk about reform, because he believes there is no need for reform. "There is no crisis," he will tell you.
But Senator Reid is wrong. And instead of touring the country ridiculing his colleagues for trying to fix this important program, he should be in Washington helping to iron out a solution.
Whether Senator Reid thinks Social Security is in a "crisis" or not, the program will begin to run a deficit ? spending more money on benefits than it takes in through taxes ? in less than 15 years, by 2018 according to the last report of Social Security's trustees.
The so-called Social Security Trust Fund (search), which is supposed to help pay benefits until 2042, in reality contains only government bonds, essentially IOUs. Few doubt that those benefits will ultimately be paid, but the federal government will still have to find the money to pay them. Ultimately, Social Security's unfunded liabilities exceed $26 trillion. That's real money, even by Washington terms.
I?ve just thrown a lot of dates at you. But try to forget all that. Here?s the only date you (and Senator Reid, for that matter) need to concern yourselves with: 2008. That's when the huge group of Baby Boomers starts to retire and draw on Social Security. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently stated before Congress:
"Because the pay-as-you-go system will be very difficult to manage, we need an alternative ? Real progress on these issues will unavoidably entail many difficult choices ? But the demographics are inexorable, and call for action before the leading edge of baby boomer retirement becomes evident in 2008."
Let us trust Greenspan and grant that there is a serious problem. What does Senator Reid ? the highest-ranking Democrat in Washington ? propose to do about it? Nothing. He has no plan and no suggestions, just more demagoguery.
Senator Reid used to understand the power of markets. Back in 1999, he said, "Most of us have no problem taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector." Of course, we had a different president then, one from the Senate minority leader's own party.
As that former president ? Bill Clinton ? pointed out, there are really only three options for Social Security reform: raise taxes, cut benefits, or invest privately. As Reid has ruled out private investment, he could legitimately be accused of implicitly endorsing tax increases and/or benefit cuts.
And mighty big tax increases they would have to be; a 50 percent increase in the payroll tax or the equivalent. It would be a tax increase far higher than what Senator Reid would "save" by rolling back parts of Bush's tax cuts ? even if he hadn't already promised to use those savings to fund other government spending. And, contrary to the senator's promises, a payroll tax increase is a tax hike that would fall like a piano onto workers earning less than $200,000 per year.
The benefit cuts would be no less draconian. Today's younger workers would face cuts of 27 percent in their benefits, severely diminishing their quality of life during their golden years.
Maintaining the long-term solvency of the system is far from the only problem. Social Security is set to provide today's workers with abysmally low returns on their "investments." The program unfairly penalizes African Americans, working women, and others. Workers don't have any guaranteed right to their benefits. In short, it is a program crying out for reform.
But Harry Reid continues to duck the issue.
That's unacceptable. Harry Reid needs to tell the American people what he plans to do about the looming Social Security crisis. If Reid plans to raise taxes to prop up Social Security, or cut benefits, he should tell us so. If he has another idea, he should share it with us.
But fearmongering is not a Social Security plan.
Michael Tanner is the director of Cato's Project on Social Security Choice, which maintains a website at www.socialsecurity.org.
I have seen no plan from anyone just talk. And they all talk out of both sides there mouth when it comes to S S. I'm waiting for them to say there going to run 401 k plans so employers can stop. As for the tax cut it's already showing it will cost more then we can afford. And it sure didn't stop all those jobs from going out of the country. And DTB yes you are right closer to 80 bucks but it don't cover all items thats why you need back up. For sure senors trying to get by on less then $13000 a year. Drugs are not free either. It's hard for some of the young one's here to understand if there lucky. They will live past 60 and welcome to the real world. It's just not about money.
